Preview
F IL ED
CAUSE NO. DC—20-08856
CRELENE DENBY-THOMPSON, § IN THE DISTRIZCQZP gfiT 8&2 03
§~EL5€1A 5,";‘igg
§
06m“?
’
33*
Plaintiff, §
§
DALLAS
Q
COUN
DALLAsEo..LERKs
m V
PUTY
v. § ,
§
SILVERLEAF RESORTS, INC, §
ORLANDO BREEZE RESORTS CLUB, §
INC, and HOLIDAY INN CLUB §
VACATIONS INCORPORATED, §
§
Defendants. §
160th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
I TFF NED -THO PS N
OBJECT!ON TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiff, CRELENE DENBY-THOMPSON, hereby files this her Objection to
Defendants Silverleaf Resorts, Inc., now known as Silverleaf Resorts, LLC (“Silverleaf”),
Orlando Breeze Resorts Club, improperly named as Orlando Breeze Resorts, Inc. (the
“C1ub”), and Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated (“HICVI”) (collectively,
“Defendants”)1 Motion for Protective Order, and state as follows:
INTRODUCTIOIS AND BAQKQRQUND
Crelene Denby-Thompson (“Plaintiff”) is a Texas consumer who was misled by
the Defendants and purchased three vacation ownership interests from Silverleaf
procured by fraud. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 29, 2020, alleging claims for
violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) and fraud.
l
In May 201 5, Orange Lake Holdings, LLP purchased SL Resorts Holdings, Inc., the parent
company ’of Silverleaf Resorts, LLC, which was formerly known as Silverleaf Resorts, Inc.
Orange Lake Holdings, LLP changed its name to Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated on
August 19, 2019.
PLAINTIFF OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTs’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 1
On July 316, 2020, Plaintiff served her First Set of Consolidated Discovery (the
“Requests”). [Ex A.]
As detailed in Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay
Litigation Proceedings (“Motion to Compel Arbitration”), Defendants avers that the
written contracts between Plaintiff and Silverleaf for all three of her purchases
(hereinafier, the “Contracts”) contain valid and enforceable arbitration agreements (the
“Arbitration Addenda”), whereby the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate any and all
disputes arising out of or relating to the Contracts or their relationship. Accordingly,
Defendants have moved to compel this dispute to arbitration under the terms of the
Contracts.
OBJECTION PRESENTED:
The Plaintiff contends that discovery 0n the issue of misrepresentation and fraud
should be permitted to properly determine if the contracts were procured by fraud, and if
the Conn determines that it does not have sufficient information t0 fairly and pmperly
evaluate the Motion to Compel Arbitration, it should allow limited discovery.
Accordingly, Plaintiff ask the Court to enter an order denying the Defendants request for
Protection Order protecting them from the Requests and any other discovery sought by
Plaintiff, or stay ruling on this issue until the Motion to Compel Arbitration is heard and
decided.
In a fraud situation, as is in this case, the signature is genuine but is procured through
deceptive means. In Texas, an instrument procured by fraud is voidable at the election of
the defrauded Grantm' S'pe Slaughter v Qunl/v 162 S WZd 67] (Tex 1242) Such an
PLAINTIFF OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTs’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 2
of legal until set aside by the defrauded person
instrument is effective as a conveyance title
Church 0f Cloverleafv. Texas Bank, 889 S. W251
through a judicial proceeding. Lighthouse
writ denied). Plaintiff seeks to void any
595, 602 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist] I994,
because they were procured through
and all agreements signed with the Defendants
were misrepresented to the Plaintiff through a
misrepresentations and fraud. Material facts
ons with the Defendants.
series of false advertisements and misleading conversati
in litigation is the full disclosure of relevant facts
The purpose of pretrial discovery
0f Civil Procedure provides for board discovery
between disputing parties. The Texas Rules
information that is not privileged and Which is
in that a party is permitted to discover all
purposes are served by permitting liberal
to the litigated matter. Generally, three
relevant
discovery:
to
narrowing and clarifying disputed issues prior
trial;
1. liberal discovery aids in
of evidence by parties for use at trial; and
2. liberal discovery facilitates acquisition
securing information about the existence of evidence that
3. liberal discovery assists in
may be obtained.
may be used at trial and how and from whom such evidence
helps to avoid unfair surprise at trial while providing
In fulfilling these goals, discovery
a basis for pretrial settlement. Courts have power to order
informationxhat may be used as
including the authority to issue subpoena for discovery
broad discovery in aid of litigation,
depositions and for document production.
at the times Defendants were dealing fast and
Plaintiff was not afforded an attorney
of documents for siging in the course of misrepresenting
loose while gresenting the stack
PLAINTIFF OBJECTION TO DEFENDAN Ts’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 3
actually properly being explained what she was
the facts of What and Where to sign without
rent representative staff members.
signing with the Defendants and their diffe
O C U IO L EF E T D
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully pray that the Court DENY the Defendants
from responding t0 Plaintiff's
for a protective order protecting Defendants
request
and deciding the Defendants’ Motion to Comps]
Requests prior to the Court hearing
Arbitration.
Respectfully submitted,
’3.
Iggy: {1,ngw'fl
V.
if
Ar
5
{mgxuruw/o k
RELENE DEN Y
200 Abel Drive
Glenn Heights, Texas 75 1 54
Tel. (214) 463-8860
ION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 4
PLAINTIFF OBJECTION T0 DEFENDANTs’ MOT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Rule 21 of the Texas rules 0f Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that a true and
Plaintiff Objection To Defendants Motion For Protective Order, and
correct copy of the foregoing
Plaintiff Objection to DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS
OR STAY LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS has been served on all opposing counsel of record this
let day of August, 2020, Via hand-delivery and U.S. Regular Postal Mail.
-'“.
//,:
>
J1,",
y" ‘. ,,
ECRELENE DENBYT v'
OMPSONJ‘"
PLAINTIFF OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTs’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 5
Preview
F IL ED CAUSE NO. DC—20-08856 CRELENE DENBY-THOMPSON, § IN THE DISTRIZCQZP gfiT 8&2 03 §~EL5€1A 5,";‘igg § 06m“? ’ 33* Plaintiff, § § DALLAS Q COUN DALLAsEo..LERKs m V PUTY v. § , § SILVERLEAF RESORTS, INC, § ORLANDO BREEZE RESORTS CLUB, § INC, and HOLIDAY INN CLUB § VACATIONS INCORPORATED, § § Defendants. § 160th JUDICIAL DISTRICT I TFF NED -THO PS N OBJECT!ON TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, CRELENE DENBY-THOMPSON, hereby files this her Objection to Defendants Silverleaf Resorts, Inc., now known as Silverleaf Resorts, LLC (“Silverleaf”), Orlando Breeze Resorts Club, improperly named as Orlando Breeze Resorts, Inc. (the “C1ub”), and Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated (“HICVI”) (collectively, “Defendants”)1 Motion for Protective Order, and state as follows: INTRODUCTIOIS AND BAQKQRQUND Crelene Denby-Thompson (“Plaintiff”) is a Texas consumer who was misled by the Defendants and purchased three vacation ownership interests from Silverleaf procured by fraud. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 29, 2020, alleging claims for violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) and fraud. l In May 201 5, Orange Lake Holdings, LLP purchased SL Resorts Holdings, Inc., the parent company ’of Silverleaf Resorts, LLC, which was formerly known as Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. Orange Lake Holdings, LLP changed its name to Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated on August 19, 2019. PLAINTIFF OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTs’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 1 On July 316, 2020, Plaintiff served her First Set of Consolidated Discovery (the “Requests”). [Ex A.] As detailed in Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay Litigation Proceedings (“Motion to Compel Arbitration”), Defendants avers that the written contracts between Plaintiff and Silverleaf for all three of her purchases (hereinafier, the “Contracts”) contain valid and enforceable arbitration agreements (the “Arbitration Addenda”), whereby the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate any and all disputes arising out of or relating to the Contracts or their relationship. Accordingly, Defendants have moved to compel this dispute to arbitration under the terms of the Contracts. OBJECTION PRESENTED: The Plaintiff contends that discovery 0n the issue of misrepresentation and fraud should be permitted to properly determine if the contracts were procured by fraud, and if the Conn determines that it does not have sufficient information t0 fairly and pmperly evaluate the Motion to Compel Arbitration, it should allow limited discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff ask the Court to enter an order denying the Defendants request for Protection Order protecting them from the Requests and any other discovery sought by Plaintiff, or stay ruling on this issue until the Motion to Compel Arbitration is heard and decided. In a fraud situation, as is in this case, the signature is genuine but is procured through deceptive means. In Texas, an instrument procured by fraud is voidable at the election of the defrauded Grantm' S'pe Slaughter v Qunl/v 162 S WZd 67] (Tex 1242) Such an PLAINTIFF OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTs’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 2 of legal until set aside by the defrauded person instrument is effective as a conveyance title Church 0f Cloverleafv. Texas Bank, 889 S. W251 through a judicial proceeding. Lighthouse writ denied). Plaintiff seeks to void any 595, 602 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist] I994, because they were procured through and all agreements signed with the Defendants were misrepresented to the Plaintiff through a misrepresentations and fraud. Material facts ons with the Defendants. series of false advertisements and misleading conversati in litigation is the full disclosure of relevant facts The purpose of pretrial discovery 0f Civil Procedure provides for board discovery between disputing parties. The Texas Rules information that is not privileged and Which is in that a party is permitted to discover all purposes are served by permitting liberal to the litigated matter. Generally, three relevant discovery: to narrowing and clarifying disputed issues prior trial; 1. liberal discovery aids in of evidence by parties for use at trial; and 2. liberal discovery facilitates acquisition securing information about the existence of evidence that 3. liberal discovery assists in may be obtained. may be used at trial and how and from whom such evidence helps to avoid unfair surprise at trial while providing In fulfilling these goals, discovery a basis for pretrial settlement. Courts have power to order informationxhat may be used as including the authority to issue subpoena for discovery broad discovery in aid of litigation, depositions and for document production. at the times Defendants were dealing fast and Plaintiff was not afforded an attorney of documents for siging in the course of misrepresenting loose while gresenting the stack PLAINTIFF OBJECTION TO DEFENDAN Ts’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 3 actually properly being explained what she was the facts of What and Where to sign without rent representative staff members. signing with the Defendants and their diffe O C U IO L EF E T D WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully pray that the Court DENY the Defendants from responding t0 Plaintiff's for a protective order protecting Defendants request and deciding the Defendants’ Motion to Comps] Requests prior to the Court hearing Arbitration. Respectfully submitted, ’3. Iggy: {1,ngw'fl V. if Ar 5 {mgxuruw/o k RELENE DEN Y 200 Abel Drive Glenn Heights, Texas 75 1 54 Tel. (214) 463-8860 ION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 4 PLAINTIFF OBJECTION T0 DEFENDANTs’ MOT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Rule 21 of the Texas rules 0f Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that a true and Plaintiff Objection To Defendants Motion For Protective Order, and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff Objection to DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS OR STAY LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS has been served on all opposing counsel of record this let day of August, 2020, Via hand-delivery and U.S. Regular Postal Mail. -'“. //,: > J1,", y" ‘. ,, ECRELENE DENBYT v' OMPSONJ‘" PLAINTIFF OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTs’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 5